adaptation plan - skclivinglandscapes.org · climate change adaptation plan executive summary this...

Shaktoolik, Alaska: Climate Change

Adaptation for an At-Risk Community

Adaptation Plan

February 27, 2014

Prepared by: Terry Johnson, Alaska Sea Grant Program &

Glenn Gray, Glenn Gray and Associates

For: The Community of Shaktoolik

Funded by: OAR National Sea Grant College Program

Shaktoolik Adaptation Plan iii

Shaktoolik, Alaska: Climate Change Adaptation

for an At-Risk Community

Alaska Sea Grant Program

Adaptation Plan

Shaktoolik Planning Committee

Native Village of Shaktoolik: Harvey Sookiayak, Sr. and Edgar Jackson, Sr.

City of Shaktoolik: Mayor Eugene Asicksik and Agnes Takak

Shaktoolik Native Corporation: Teresa Perry and George Sookiayak Sr.

Shaktoolik Project Coordinator Thomas Sagoonick, Native Village of Shaktoolik

Native Village of Shaktoolik

Axel Jackson, President

Harvey Sookiayak, Sr., Council Member

Edna Savetilik, Council Member Agnes Takak, Council Member Randall Takak, Council Member

Matilda Hardy, Council Member Edgar Jackson, Sr., Council Member Karlene Sagoonick, Administrator Michael Sookiayak, Sr., Grant Writer

City of Shaktoolik

Eugene Asicksik, Mayor Edgar Jackson, Sr., Vice Mayor George Sookiayak, Council Member Fred Sagoonick, Council Member

Axel Jackson, Council Member Agnes Takak, Secretary Edna Savetilik, Treasurer Isabelle Jackson, City Clerk

Shaktoolik Native Corporation

Teresa Perry, President

Eugene Asicksik, Vice President

Carol Sookiayak, Secretary

Betty Jackson, Treasurer

Ellen Hunt, Board Member

George Sookiayak, Board Member

Fred Sagoonick, General Manager

Sea Grant Team

Terry Johnson, Alaska Sea Grant Glenn Gray, Glenn Gray and Associates

Project Website: http://seagrant.uaf.edu/map/climate/shaktoolik/index.php

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/map/climate/shaktoolik/index.php

Shaktoolik Adaptation Plan iv




Climate Change Adaptation Plan

Abbreviations

ACCP Alaska Community Coastal Protection Project

ANICA Alaska Native Industries Cooperative Association, Inc. ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium ATV All-Terrain Vehicle AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative C Celsius CDQ Community Development Quota Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DHS&EM Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DGGS Division of Geological and Geophysical Services, Department of Natural Resources EPA Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency IGAP Indian General Assistance Program IRA Indian Reorganization Act IRR Indian Reservation Roads Program IRT Innovative Readiness Training kW Kilowatt LEO Local Environmental Observer NSEDC Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation MLLW Mean lower low water

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

P.E. Professional Engineer

SNAP Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning

Shaktoolik Adaptation Plan v




Executive Summary

This Adaptation Plan outlines next steps for the community of Shaktoolik as it responds to threats,

primarily erosion and flooding, resulting from a changing climate. The Alaska Sea Grant project

builds on previous planning efforts by the community, and it sets the stage for a project by the

State of Alaska under the Alaska Community Coastal Protection Project.

Shaktoolik, a community of 250 people, is situated near the northern end of a sand spit bordered by

the Tagoomenik River to the east and Norton Sound to the west. Residents moved to the current

village site in 1975, located about a mile north of the former village, because of flooding and

erosion concerns. Residents are descendants of Unalit (Yupik) and Malemiut (Iñupiat) people. They

thrive on a mixed economy that includes traditional subsistence activities as well as earnings from

commercial fishing and local jobs at the school, Tribe, City, and Shaktoolik Native Corporation.

The first action of the Sea Grant project was establishment of the Planning Committee with

members representing the City, Tribe and local Native Corporation. The project provided funding

for a part-time local project coordinator. Sea Grant staff, the consultant and the local coordinator

conducted meetings with experts, developed a suite of alternatives intended to afford the

community protection against flooding and erosion, and prepared a detailed list of potential

funding sources. In addition, the project included outreach to other Alaska coastal communities at

risk to impacts from climate change.

Climate change will likely impact Shaktoolik in many ways, but this plan focuses on the two most

compelling threats: flooding and erosion. While there is no scientific evidence that storms are

getting fiercer and more frequent, it is well documented that winters are getting shorter, and

temperatures are rising. The later freeze up of Norton Sound has delayed the buildup of shore ice

each fall which historically has served as a buffer between the village and the November storms.

This lack of shore ice makes the community more vulnerable to wave damage flooding and from

storm surges. Fall storms have resulted in some damage during recent years, including erosion to

the former village site and damage to utilities at the current village site, including several septic

drainage fields. Wave runup has pushed potentially destructive driftwood to within a few feet of

some buildings on the seaward side of the village. The storms that caused concern in recent years

produced wave and storm surge heights well below that which is predicted to occur in the future.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has modeled storms and wave heights for eastern Norton Sound,

and it predicts that a 50-year storm would flood some buildings, and that a 100-year storm would

flood the entire community with water heights between 2.9’ and 7.4’ above the finished floor

Shaktoolik Adaptation Plan vi

elevations of existing buildings. These estimates account for storm surge (temporary localized

increase in sea level on both sides of the village) combined with wave runup and wave setup which

would occur on the ocean side of the village. A vegetated berm built inland of the beach would

absorb some of the wave energy and reduce flood levels.

An evacuation road has been evaluated as a measure to save lives in the event of catastrophic

flooding, but is impractical for a number of reasons. The exit route that has been considered travels

13 miles down the narrow, low-lying spit to the nearest high ground, and any storm that flooded

the village would also inundate the spit. The cost to build an evacuation road has been estimated at

$12-60 million, and there are not enough vehicles in the village to evacuate everyone by road.

Lastly, there are no buildings at the terminus of the route to shelter the community.

The former village site clearly is eroding, but it is uncertain whether the current village site is

experiencing progressive erosion or episodic erosion followed by periods of accretion. While a

comparison of aerial photos indicates movement inward of the beach berm in front of the

community, this technique does not accurately predict beach erosion or accretion.

Some committee members acknowledge that the current site probably is untenable in the long

term, but it may be decades before resources become available for relocation. Furthermore, people

like where they live and don’t want to move. Meanwhile, the threat from the sea renews annually

with each fall storm season. Consequently the Planning Committee decided upon a “defend in

place” approach which involves consideration of all options to allow residents to remain at the

current site. Committee members recognize that new information someday may justify

reconsideration of that decision. The Community adopted nine initiatives that focus on protection

of human life, buildings and infrastructure. These measures, summarized below, were chosen

because they are cost-effective and promote the use of local materials and labor.

1. Vegetated Berm: Construct a vegetated berm in front of the community.

2. Storm Surge Mound: Construct a mound to serve as a place of refuge during a storm.

3. Multipurpose Building: Construct a building for use as offices and a storm shelter.

4. Tank Farms: Explore options to replace and relocate the community’s two tank farms.

5. Background Papers: Develop brief issue papers and funding proposals for each initiative.

6. Hazard Plan: Update the local hazard mitigation plan to reflect current priorities.

7. Monitoring: Continue community and agency monitoring of storm surges and erosion.

8. Future Studies: Pursue funding for new studies needed to implement the adaptation plan.

9. Guidelines: Develop local guidelines for future development to protect structures from

storms.

The plan includes actions tables for each of these initiatives that can be updated to track progress

and that can be amended to take advantage of changing conditions and new opportunities.

Shaktoolik Adaptation Plan vii



Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Background 2

2.1 Community Background 2

2.2 Background on the Alaska Sea Grant Project 6

2.3 Context for the Adaptation Plan 7

2.3.1 Previous Projects 8

2.3.1.1 Shaktoolik Planning Project 8

2.3.1.2 Hazard Mapping Project 8

2.3.1.3 Shaktoolik Flooding Analysis 8

2.3.1.4 Other Climate-Related Planning Efforts 8

2.3.2 Future Projects 10

2.3.2.1 Alaska Community Coastal Protection Project 10

2.3.2.2 Demonstration Berm 10

2.3.2.3 Storm Surge Monitoring 10

3 Impacts of Climate Change for Shaktoolik 11

3.1 Risks of Flooding and Erosion 11

3.1.1 Flooding Threats 11

3.1.2 Erosion Threats 13

3.1.2.1 Coastal Erosion 13

3.1.2.2 Riverine Erosion 14

3.2 Other Risks from a Changing Climate 14

4 Initiatives for Implementing the Adaptation Plan 18

4.1 Initiatives 19

4.1.1 Vegetated Berm 19

4.1.2 Storm Surge Mound 21

4.1.3 Multipurpose Building 22

4.1.4 Funding Proposals and Communication 23

4.1.5 Local Mitigation Hazard Plan 24

4.1.6 Tank Farms 24

4.2.7 Monitoring 25

4.1.8 Future Studies 26

4.1.9 Guidelines 27

5. Implementation 28

References 29

Shaktoolik Adaptation Plan 1





1 Introduction

Shaktoolik, a community located on the eastern edge of Norton Sound, faces increased risks of

flooding and erosion. As a consequence of a warming climate, Norton Sound waters freeze up later

in the fall than in the past, which means that sea ice no longer buffers the community from high

seas and pounding waves from fall storms. While there are other current and potential impacts

from climate change, this plan focuses on impacts from flooding and erosion, the most immediate

climate-related threats to the community.

This Climate Change Adaptation Plan is the final product of a two-year project of the Alaska Sea

Grant Program in collaboration with Glenn Gray and Associates and the community of Shaktoolik. In

preparation for this project, the community established the Shaktoolik Planning Committee through

a joint resolution approved by the City of

Shaktoolik, the Native Village of Shaktoolik

and the Shaktoolik Native Corporation.

Participation by representatives of all three

organizations ensured that the community

spoke with one voice. The Committee

operated informally, meetings were

noticed and open to the community, and

decisions were made by consensus.

Members of the community who were not

officially on the committee were welcome

to share their thoughts at any time during

committee meetings, and many

community members participated.

The major sections of this plan include background about the community and this project, a

description climate change impacts, a summary of initiatives to implement the plan, and conclusory

remarks.

Vicinity Map


2 Background

This section provides background about the community and more detailed information about this

project.

2.1 Community Background

With a 2010 population of 251, Shaktoolik is located on the eastern edge of Norton Sound 33 miles

north of Unalakleet and 125 miles east of

Nome. The community is situated on the

northern end of a sand spit with Norton

Sound to the west and the Tagoomenik

River on the east. A beach ridge fronts the

community on the side facing Norton

Sound. The highest ground in the

community is 24.7’ above mean lower low

water (MLLW) (U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers 2011). The elevation drops to

14’ above MLLW on the river side of the

community (R.J. Kinney Associates 2008).1

The homes and other buildings are located

in two rows, one on either side of a single

gravel road that runs through the village. The road extends north to the airport and several miles

south past the former townsite.

The people of Shaktoolik are descendants of the Unalit and Malemiut people. The Unalit are Yupik

Eskimos who occupied the area during the time of first western contact, and the Malemiut are

Iñupiaq Eskimos who migrated to Norton Sound from the Kotzebue Sound area.

Shaktoolik faces erosive forces from both the Tagoomenik River and Norton Sound. The

Tagoomenik and Shaktoolik rivers converge in a tidal lagoon two miles northwest of the community

at the end of the sand spit. The entire community is located within the 100-year flood plain (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers 2011).

Shaktoolik is considered to have a subarctic climate with Norton Sound generally ice free between

May and October and sometimes into late November. Typically, the temperature is between 47°

and 62° F during summer months and between -4° and 11° F during the winter. Extreme

temperatures vary between -50° and 87° F. The average annual precipitation is 14”, including 43”

of snowfall.

1 MHHW is about four feet higher than MLLW.

Aerial view of Shaktoolik


Maps posted on the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

website depict buildings, utilities, subsistence use areas, and flood prone areas (State of Alaska

1980, and Kawerak 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, and 1996). Elevations on the 1980 and 2004 maps conflict,

but a new topographic map completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2011 provides more

accuracy based on a new tidal benchmark established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA).

Governance: Shaktoolik has both a city government and a tribal government. The City of

Shaktoolik incorporated as a 2nd class city in 1967 and is governed by a seven-member council with

a strong mayor form of government. The mayor provides day-to-day management of city affairs

with assistance from the city clerk. The City is in the process of selecting lands under authority of

Section 14(C)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

The Native Village of Shaktoolik is a federally-recognized tribe organized under authority of the

Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) that is governed by a seven-member council. The IRA has diverse

powers, including authority for the protection of life, property, and the environment threatened by

natural disasters (Kawerak 2007).

Economy: The local economy is primarily based on harvest of subsistence resources supplemented

by commercial fishing and a limited number of conventional jobs provided by the City of Shaktoolik,

the Native Village of Shaktoolik, the Shaktoolik Native Corporation, the Bering Strait School District,

and the Shaktoolik Native Store. There were four active business licenses in Shaktoolik during

February 2014, including the Shaktoolik

Native Corporation, Shaktoolik Native

Store, a building services business, and a

bed and breakfast. The two grocery stores

are operated by the Shaktoolik Native

Corporation and the Alaska Native

Industries Cooperative Association, Inc.

(ANICA). In 2012, 82 people were

employed in the community, the median

household income was $29,219 and the

mean household income was $47,846 (U.S.

Census Bureau 2012).

Shaktoolik residents participate in

commercial fisheries for salmon, herring and king crab. Commercial fishing provides the main

source of cash income for the village in addition to government assistance programs. In the early

1960s, a local market for salmon was created when fish buyers came to the village, and in 1979, a

Fishing boats in the lagoon


commercial herring fishery began. In February 2014, 54 residents had commercial fishing permits

(Commercial Fishing Entry Commission 2014).

Shaktoolik participates in the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program through participation

in the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC). The intent of the CDQ program

is to give a share of the Bering Sea fisheries to communities to generate sustainable fishery-related

economies. NSEDC distributes a community benefit share to each of its member communities, and

it administers a number of other programs that benefit the communities.

Subsistence: From a subsistence standpoint, the community is ideally located for easy access to

Norton Sound and the Shaktoolik and Tagoomenik rivers. The river side of the community provides

access to freshwater fish, upriver caribou and

moose and a safe area for storing boats. Close

proximity to Norton Sound provides convenient

access to marine subsistence species. Residents

harvest salmon, herring, crab, moose, beluga

whale, caribou, seal, rabbit, geese, cranes,

ducks, ptarmigan, berries, greens, and roots.

Subsistence provides Shaktoolik residents with

food and wood for heating. In addition,

subsistence is a way of life that provides cultural

identity and a way to express traditional values

of sharing. According to a subsistence researcher who lived in the community for a period of time,

subsistence “links the harvester to heritage of countless generations of ancestors who harvested

the same species, often in the same geographical location” (Thomas 1982, p. 290). Interviews

conducted in 2010 revealed that most Shaktoolik residents have strong ties to the area, that is, both

of their parents were from the community or its surrounding area (Glenn Gray and Associates

2010).

Water: The community obtains its water from the

Tagoomenik River at two different sites. During the

winter, it pumps water from the river adjacent to

the community, and during the summer, water is

obtained from an area a couple of miles south of

the community known locally as “First Bend.” The

water is treated and then stored in an 848,000-

gallon insulated tank. The City of Shaktoolik

operates the water treatment facility and a

washeteria. Sixty-one of the 66 estimated homes

Drinking water pump in the Tagoomenik River

Salmon dries in a beachfront shelter


are directly supplied with running water from the system, and about 75% of the homes have

complete plumbing. The community is concerned that coastal erosion at First Bend will break

through the sand spit and taint the water supply with salt water.

Sewer: Most homes in Shaktoolik are connected to septic systems that serve multiple households.

Vertical perforated culverts serve as seepage pits. Septic sludge is disposed of at a designated site

which does not meet Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation standards. High water

from a November 2013 storm surge damaged several of the septic leach fields.

Landfill: An unpermitted dump site located close to the airport was relocated to a site just south of

the village. Refuse is burned almost daily. The Native Village of Shaktoolik operates a program

under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) that

funds limited management of the dump site, including a backhaul program for lead-acid batteries,

electronic waste and other hazardous materials. The November 2013 storm surge elevated waters

close to the landfill.

Power: The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) provides electricity for the community using

three diesel‐powered generator sets of 207 kW, 175 kW, and 250 kW capacity (Alaska Village

Electric Cooperative 2008). In 2012, the Alaska Energy Authority and AVEC constructed a $2.7

million wind generation system just north of the community to supplement the diesel-powered

generators. The system includes two Northern Power 100 kW wind turbines.

Bulk Fuel: Two tank farms supply fuel for the community. The AVEC tank farm is located next to the

power plant in the middle of the

community. The second tank farm,

located at the southern end of the

community, is owned by the Shaktoolik

Native Corporation, the Native Village of

Shaktoolik and the Bering Straits School

District. None of the tanks meet U.S.

Coast Guard standards, and all need

upgrading.2 Both tank farms are

potentially threatened by erosion and in

need of relocation. Due to their

condition, the tanks cannot be moved to

a new location and will need to be

replaced. A new location for the tank

farm has not yet been selected.

2 The U.S. Coast Guard regulates facilities that receive fuel by barges.

AVEC Tank Farm


Airport: The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities maintains a 4,000’ by 75’

gravel landing strip with regular service from Nome and Unalakleet. The airport is located north of

the community towards the end of the sand spit. Partially located within the active beach zone, the

apron at the south end of the airstrip periodically has been inundated during fall storms.

Freight: In addition to air freight, cargo is barged from Nome during the ice-free season. Barges

land on the beach in locations near the school, the AVEC power plant and near the Shaktoolik

Native Corporation tank farm.

Housing: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 66 housing units in the community in

2010 with six of them vacant (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Roads: The City of Shaktoolik is responsible for road maintenance within the municipal boundaries,

and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is responsible for maintaining the

road to the airport (Rodney J. Kinney Associates 2007). The Shaktoolik IRA will be responsible for

maintaining any future roads constructed under the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program.

2.2 Background on the Alaska Sea Grant Project

The Alaska Sea Grant Program initiated the current project in early 2012: Climate Change

Adaptation for an At-Risk Community, Shaktoolik, Alaska. This project included a number of

elements that provided information for completion of the final product, the Adaptation Plan.

Local Coordinator: The project funded a part-time local coordinator, hired by the Native

Village of Shaktoolik, to provide a single point of contact with the community.

Planning Committee Meetings:

The Planning Committee held six

meetings during the two-year

project. These meetings were

open to the public and provided

direction for the Sea Grant team.

The Sea Grant team visited

Shaktoolik in November 2012,

July 2013, November 2013, and

February 2014.

Community Meeting: The draft

Adaptation Plan was presented

during the annual meeting of the

Native Village of Shaktoolik, an

event that attracts the entire community.

Shaktoolik youths enjoy a summer campfire


Expert Meetings: The Sea Grant Project Team arranged meetings with experts in various

disciplines, including coastal engineers with the Alaska Department of Transportation and

Public Facilities and staff from the Army Corps of Engineers, University of Alaska, Alaska

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Natural Resource

Conservation Service, and Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency

Management. The meetings were held in person in Shaktoolik and by teleconference.

Field Trip: In July 2013, an on-site investigation was conducted to evaluate evidence of

erosion and potential measures to address flooding and erosion. A meeting with the

Planning Team coincided with this visit.

Funding Sources: The Sea Grant team developed a document that identified a

comprehensive list of potential funding sources for use by Shaktoolik and other at-risk

communities. This document is posted on the Sea Grant website.

Adaptation Measures: The project also involved development of a list of potential

adaptation measures the community could take to respond to threats of flooding and

erosion. The Planning Committee used the Adaptation Measures document and other

information to choose the initiatives and implementation actions included in the Adaptation

Plan.

Outreach: In addition to distribution of the final report, this project included outreach to

the public during the 2013 and 2014

Alaska Forum on the Environment, an

annual meeting involving rural tribal

representatives, agency staff and

scientists. The 2013 session involved a

panel discussion with representatives

from Shaktoolik and other at-risk

communities, including Newtok,

Shishmaref and Kivalina. The February

2014 forum involved a panel discussion

on the Shaktoolik Sea Grant project.

Also, project documents were posted

on the Alaska Sea Grant website for use

by Alaska at-risk communities and other

interested parties. A total of about 70 people attended the two FOE sessions, most of them

from rural Alaska communities.

Website: Project documents may be viewed at:


2.3 Context for the Adaptation Plan

This section provides a brief summary of how past and future initiatives relate to the Alaska Sea

Grant Project.

2013 Alaska Forum on the Environment. Terry Johnson, Sea Grant; Matilda Hardy, Shaktoolik; Mayor Stanley Tocktoo, Shishmaref; Millie Hawley, Kivalina. (Ruth Carter)



2.3.1 Previous Projects

This section provides an overview of previous projects that in some way address the risks of

flooding and erosion.

2.3.1.1 Shaktoolik Planning Project

Between 2010 and 2012, Glenn Gray and Associates, in association with Kawerak Inc. and McKnight

and Associates, worked with the community to complete the Shaktoolik Planning Project. The

project involved an assessment of the risks of natural hazards to the community. It also involved a

door-to-door survey of the residents, a Situation Assessment, and a final report that summarized

recommendations by community leaders. Detailed information about the community and risks from

natural hazards may be found in the Situation Assessment. In addition, the report included a

vulnerability assessment.

2.3.1.2 Hazard Mapping Project

The Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) hazard mapping project involved

field investigations in 2011 to assess natural hazards facing the community. The project involved

collection of extensive baseline data about local geology, coastal and ocean processes and historic

storms in and around the community. The DGGS team established beach profiles in front of the

current community and the former site. The final product will be a map depicting the natural

hazards. The investigators returned to Shaktoolik after the November 2011 storm to investigate

storm damage and to complete new beach profiles (Kinsman and DeRaps 2012).

2.3.1.3 Shaktoolik Flooding Analysis

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a study in 2011 of flooding risks to the community

from Norton Sound and the Tagoomenik River. The study involved measurement of the offshore

bathymetry, completion of beach profiles, development of a map referencing elevations to mean

lower low water, and development of a model to predict flooding events. The model used historic

wind, wave, and storm surge water level data. Results of the study are discussed in Section 3.1.

2.3.1.4 Other Climate-Related Planning Efforts

A number of other planning efforts that relate to climate change impacts to Shaktoolik are

summarized in the following bullets.

Local Hazard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: This plan identifies local hazards facing the

community (WHPacific 2009). One of the recommendations in the adaptation plan is to

update the hazard plan to include new information about flooding and erosion and to

update the goals in the plan.


Emergency Plans: Three plans completed in 2010 address community responses to

emergencies, including storm-related events: Emergency Operations Plan, Evacuation Plan,

and Continuity of Operations Plan (Ecology and Environment 2010a, 2010b and 2010c).

Multi-Purpose Building: A 2012 feasibility study analyzed costs and options for a multi-

purpose building that could also serve as an emergency shelter during a storm (USKH 2012).

Map indicating beach profiles completed by DGGS (DeRaps and Kinsman 2011).


Economic Development Plan: Kawerak, Inc., the regional tribal organization, periodically updates the community’s local economic development plan (Kawerak 2007). These plans identify local priorities, including those related to threats of natural hazards. Kawerak was developing an update to this plan in early 2014.

Norton Bay Climate Adaptation and Action Plan: Although this plan mentions Shaktoolik, it focusses on the watershed around Elim, another community in Norton Sound (Norton Bay Inter-Tribal Watershed Council 2012). It includes seven goals, ranging from obtaining more data to increasing funding opportunities.

2.3.2 Future Projects

2.3.2.1 Alaska Community Coastal Protection Project

The Division of Community and Regional Affairs, within the Alaska Department of Commerce,

Community and Economic Development, plans to implement the Adaptation Plan through the

Alaska Community Coastal Protection (ACCP) Project after completion of the Sea Grant project. The

ACCP Project includes separate efforts for Shaktoolik, Kivalina and Shishmaref. An interagency work

group will be established for Shaktoolik to help guide the development of a strategic management

plan. The project will fund a local coordinator to work with the community as well as travel to the

interagency work group meetings. A consultant will be hired to assist with development of the

strategic management plan.

2.3.2.2 Demonstration Berm

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) received funding for a pilot

project to construct a demonstration berm using beach wild-rye grass (Leymus mollis). While this

project will only involve a small portion of the beachfront, it will provide a means to estimate costs

for restoring the entire berm in front of

the community. It will also establish

coastal engineering procedures and

criteria for use and monitoring of a

vegetated coastal berm.

2.3.2.3 Storm Surge

Monitoring

DOT&PF received a grant to establish

storm surge monitors in up to eight

Western Alaska locations, including

Shaktoolik. Coastal engineers

established a gauge in Shaktoolik in

June 2013 and made arrangements for

local monitoring.

June 2011 Sea Grant Project field trip participants investigate potential location of the demonstration berm.


3 Impacts of Climate Change for Shaktoolik

Northern Alaska communities, such as Shaktoolik, are experiencing increasing impacts from a

changing climate. This section provides an overview of current and likely impacts to the community

from climate change. It begins with a discussion of the two factors of greatest importance to the

community – flooding and erosion. It continues with a brief discussion of other climate change

factors that currently affect or are likely to affect the community in the future.

3.1 Risks of Flooding and Erosion

The major climate change-related threats to the sand spit where Shaktoolik is located include

coastal and riverine erosion and partial

flooding or complete inundation. While

storms may not be getting stronger than in

the past, the later freeze-up subjects the

community to increased risks of flooding and

erosion. Without the protective cover of ice,

waves and storm surges from fall storms

damage the community.

Threats include a potential for both loss of

property and human life. The lack of site-

specific data, complicated by different

assumptions applied during various

investigations, has resulted in differing

opinions about the degree of flooding and

erosion risks facing the community. While

more clarity will likely be achieved as

additional information is collected during future monitoring and studies, the community has

decided to begin taking action based on the best available information.

3.1.1 Flooding Threats

The 2011 Shaktoolik Coastal Flooding Analysis prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

includes estimates of the probability of future flood events with different recurrence periods.3 For

example, it predicts that a 50-year storm would inundate the community 1-3’, while a 100-year

storm would overtop the community 4.6’.4 With the addition of waves, buildings in the community

would be flooded between 2.9’ and 7.4’ above the finished floor elevations, depending on the

3 Recurrence periods refer to estimates of the probability a flood will occur during a specific time period. For

instance, a flood with a 100-year periodicity has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. 4 These figures include storm surge levels and wave setup. They do not include wave runup which occurs when

waves rush up a beach.

Storm comparison at Shaktoolik Native Corporation Building (Photo: Gloria Andrew)


elevation of the building. Construction of a vegetated berm or other structures along the beach

would absorb some of the wave energy and reduce wave runup.

An extreme storm without adequate prior warning could lead to loss of life because currently there

is no safe refuge in the community. Furthermore, it may not be safe to evacuate by aircraft or by

vehicles along the coast during a storm, and there is no facility at higher ground to accept and

shelter evacuees. A flood would damage electrical and communications systems, septic systems,

and oil tanks. A major storm could cause contamination from septic systems, the oil tank farms and

the landfill. In addition, a storm could do additional damage to buildings from battering driftwood

and other debris.

While the 2011 flooding analysis is the most comprehensive investigation into flooding risks for

Shaktoolik, it was not intended to be used by the community for major decisions. The Corps

prepared the report for the Western Federal Lands Highways Division of the U.S. Department of

Transportation, another federal agency. The study was requested by Kawerak, Inc., the regional

tribal organization, for the purpose of a federal agency determination regarding transportation

infrastructure funding.5

As more site-specific information becomes available, it may be useful to update the 2011 flooding

analysis. As noted in the analysis, actual storm surge measurements at the community may change

the flood levels predicted by the models. Possible considerations for additional investigation include

amendments to the model to use actual particle size of beach materials6 and consideration of how

beach logs or an elevated berm could reduce wave damage by absorbing energy. In addition, it may

be useful to incorporate data from the additional beach profiles completed by the Alaska Division of

Geological and Geophysical Surveys as well as the different wave runup heights observed at the

former and current village sites.7

The community has considered pursuing all options that would allow it to remain at the current

site. Community leaders recognize that new information may justify reconsideration of that

decision in the future.

5 Since the Shaktoolik Coastal Flooding Analysis was prepared by one federal agency for use by another federal

agency, it does not require an engineer’s endorsement as required by the State of Alaska. While the authors for the main part of the report are not indicated, the appendix includes an undated draft report by Chapman et al. titled Storm-Induced Water Level Prediction Study for Shaktoolik Alaska. 6 The wave runup model used a particle size of 1 mm while the materials in front of community are actually made

up of mostly coarse gravel between 15-20 mm. 7 The model appears to use the same assumption for wave runup at the current village site as at the former village

site. An investigation following a significant storm event in November 2011 storm, however, found that runup

observed at the former village site was nearly seven feet higher than at the current village site (Kinsman and

DeRaps 2012). This difference is likely attributable to differences in the nearshore water depths at the two sites.


3.1.2 Erosion Threats

The community faces two types of erosion threats: Erosion along the coast of Norton Sound and

erosion along the Tagoomenik River. Each of these threats is briefly described below.

3.1.2.1 Coastal Erosion

In the mid-1970s, the community moved from its former location about a mile south of the current

village site due to concerns about erosion. Elders in the community recommended the current site

because they believed it was a safer location. While fall storms have caused some erosion at the

current village site, technical experts hold conflicting views on whether this area is subject to long-

term erosion or if the area is relatively stable (this is, accretion of beach sediments during the

summer offsets erosion from episodic storms in the fall). The remainder of this section summarizes

a study that compared aerial photographs as well as recent observations at the community by

coastal engineers.

A 2009 Community Erosion Assessment completed by the Corps compared the movement of

vegetation line (beach berm) using three sets of aerial photos spanning a 24-year period.8 This

report estimated the erosion rate for

three reaches near the community.

Reach 1: The 9,600-foot

section of the beach that

fronts community - two feet

per year.


portion of coastline south of

Reach 1 - one foot per year.


portion of coastline south of

Reach 2 - three feet per year.

An update to the 2009 study

increased the erosion rate for Reach

2 to 1.5 feet per year (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers 2011).9 The 2011 report acknowledges, however, that “determining erosion

rates based solely on a vegetation line from aerial photography does not accurately predict beach

erosion or accretion” (p. 31).

8 The aerial photographs were taken in 1980, 1994 and 2004.

9 The report does not indicate how the 2009 maps were updated or why the estimate for Reach 2 was changed.

Bank erosion at the former village site


During a July 2013 site visit, State of Alaska coastal engineers Harvey Smith, P.E. and Ruth Carter,

P.E. reported that it appeared the area in front of the current site is stable while the old village site

is eroding (Alaska Sea Grant 2013).10 Given this information and the qualification in the 2011 Corps

report, multi-year monitoring should be conducted to verify whether or not the area in front of the

community is eroding. Monitoring and field-based data collection efforts, such as those of the

Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), will likely lead to more accurate

erosion assessments. The DGGS investigations and the 2011 Corps study involved completion of a

number of beach profiles which will provide an accurate baseline from which to measure future

volumetric changes to the shoreline.

3.1.2.2 Riverine Erosion

Some residents of Shaktoolik have expressed concern about erosion from the Tagoomenik River

that could contribute to a breach in the barrier spit upon which the community is located. During a

July 2013 site visit to the community, coastal

engineers Harvey Smith P.E., and Ruth Carter

P.E. evaluated the river at the narrowest part of

the spit near the former community site and

determined that there was no immediate threat

from riverine erosion. There was some evidence

of thermal erosion (slumping of the riverbank),

however, due to thawing permafrost. While

some erosion often occurs along the outside

bank of a river, the Tagoomenik is a slow moving

river with a low risk for significant erosion in the

near future.

The potential for ocean beach erosion to cut through to the river at First Bend is an additional

concern. Coastal engineers Harvey Smith, P.E. and Ruth Carter, P.E., estimated that the threat from

a breach through the spit from the ocean side likewise is not imminent and that it would likely be at

least 10 years before the beach on Norton Sound would erode through to the river. Water from

Norton Sound, however, has overtopped the spit at this site, and during the November 2013 storm,

residents reported increased erosion of the ocean beach adjacent to the First Bend area.

3.2 Other Risks from a Changing Climate

In addition to flooding and erosion, other climate-related impacts are currently impacting

Shaktoolik residents, and greater impacts will likely occur in the future. Using information from the

10

Beaches in the region typically lose material during fall storms and are gradually replenished during the summer months. The eroding bluffs about 15 miles south of the village provide a constant source of sediment due to the longshore currents which generally flow north.

Slumping bank of Tagoomenik River


community and other areas of Alaska, this section summarizes current and potential future impacts

to Shaktoolik from a warming climate.

Alaska temperatures have increased at twice the rate as the rest of the country, and climate change

models indicate there will be both a rise in temperature and precipitation for Alaska through the

end of the century (SNAP 2010).11 Since the 1950s, average temperatures rose 4° F, and they are

projected to rise 1.5-5° F by 2030 and by 5-18° F by 2100 (Parson et al. 2009). Precipitation is

expected to increase 20-25% in north and northwest Alaska by the end of the century.

Other climate-related impacts that currently impact or could potentially impact Shaktoolik in the

future are summarized in the bullets below.

Permafrost: Warming temperatures are showing effects through thawing permafrost along

the coastline and rivers around Shaktoolik. Residents report increasing difficulties in

navigating local rivers a result of sedimentation from thawing riverbanks. Romanovsky et al.

(2010) found that permafrost warming that began 20-30 years ago is continuing and that

colder soils are warming at higher rates than permafrost soils closer to the thawing point

(i.e., 0° C). Over the next 100 years, up to 30 feet of discontinuous permafrost depth is

expected to thaw (Parson et al. 2009).

Weather: Shaktoolik residents report more rainy periods, more unpredictable weather, and

shorter winters (Ignatowski and Rosales 2013),

Drying Tundra: Despite an increase in precipitation, soils are expected to become drier,

especially during the growing season. Increased air temperatures will result in more

evaporation, and an increase in the number of shrubs will result in more transpiration which

will lead to drier tundra (O’Brien and Loya 2009, Parson et al. 2009, SNAP 2010).

Lakes: Declining lakes in Alaska due to greater evaporation and thawing permafrost (U.S.

Global Change Research Program 2009). Shaktoolik residents have witnessed the draining of

several large lakes near the community.12

Wildfires: As tundra soils dry, they are more vulnerable to fires. An increase in wildfires has

been attributed to climate change in Alaska (Parson et al. 2009). Alaska wildfires are

expected to double by the middle of the century and triple by the end of the century. Due

to its location on the spit Shaktoolik is unlikely to suffer direct damage from tundra fires, but

important subsistence harvesting areas could be affected.

Sea Level Rise: Sea level rise is a long-term concern for Shaktoolik because of the

community’s low elevation, although so far it has not been documented in the region. It

11

The models show monthly predictions for the following time periods 2001-2010, 2031-2040, 2061-2070, and 2091-2100. These predictions are displayed on a monthly basis using scenarios for low, medium and high greenhouse gas emissions. 12

During the door-to-door survey for this project, five residents mentioned lakes close to the village have been draining, and they thought the cause was thawing permafrost. The residents did not indicate the name of the lakes.


occurs from an increase of fresh water into the ocean from melting sea ice and glaciers and

from thermal expansion of seawater from warming temperatures. During the past 50 years,

the sea has risen 8” or more in some areas of the U.S. coast (NOAA 2010), and it is projected

to rise between 0.18-0.59 meters (7.08”-23.2” or 0.6’ to 1.9’) by the end of the century

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).

Ocean Acidification: Ocean acidification is a growing concern in Alaska, especially since it is

occurring more rapidly in Arctic waters than in other areas (University of Alaska 2009). It

results from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that are

absorbed by the ocean. Acidification affects the ability

of some animals to make shells and skeletons, including

mollusks and krill.13 Acidification may also indirectly

affect fish and marine mammals through a reduced

availability of some food sources. Acidification has been

detected in the Bering Sea, but to date no biological

effects have been reported in Norton Sound. However,

king crab, a commercial fishery species targeted by

some Shaktoolik resident, is one of the species

considered to be vulnerable to the effects of

acidification.

Changing Plant and Animal Communities: Models

developed by scientists predict drastic changes in the

major biomes (plant and animal communities) in Alaska

(Murphy et al. 2010). About 60% of Alaska’s biomes

are expected to change by the end of the century, and

the western tundra biome is expected to decrease by

54% to be replaced by shrubs. The Western Alaska

tundra community is the most vulnerable and least

resistant to climate change. While some northern areas

have not shown much change, sudden shifts in vegetation type are expected in the future

once tipping points are reached (Doak and Morris 2010).

Fisheries: Warming sea temperatures in the Bering Sea between 2000 and 2005 resulted in

lower numbers of some fish species that require sea ice (Overland 2010). Unusually cold

ocean conditions since 2005, however, have resulted in an increase in Arctic cod and a

decrease is pollock. Recent ocean temperature trends in the Bering Sea may be the result of

natural variability, but by 2020 a trend of prolonged warm temperatures is expected

(Overland 2010).

13

For example, a 10% decrease in the population of pteropods (food for pink salmon) could result in a 20% decrease in body weight of adult pink salmon (ScienceDaily 2009). As a result of ocean acidification and an increase of melt water in the Canada Basin, calcifying organisms have experienced corrosion (Proshutinsky et al. 2010).

Shaktoolik Elder Hannah Takak displays a wolverine skin


Marine Mammals: A warming climate has implications for marine mammals that are

dependent on sea ice, including bowhead and beluga whales, ringed and bearded seals,

walrus, and polar bears. These mammals are at the top of the food chain so changes to

them can be important indicators of climate change (Simpkins 2010). Behavioral changes

have been observed for both polar bears and walrus.

Birds: Over half of the world’s shorebirds and 80% of its geese breed in Arctic and Subarctic

regions (Gill 2010). Although several Arctic geese populations have declined, overall geese

populations have increased and extended their range since the 1970s (Loonen et al. 2010).

This situation has resulted in impacts to tundra vegetation and a greater supply of eggs for

predators.

Invasive and Non-native Species: Later freeze up, earlier break up and warming air and

water temperatures may be contributing to sightings of new species and changes to the

numbers and distribution of native species. Combined with other changes, climate change

may increase the vulnerability of native species to impacts from invasive species (NOAA

2010). Changing conditions may be more favorable to new species that compete with native

species.

Health and Safety: Climate change may result in risks to human health. A decrease in use

of subsistence foods from climate change-related impacts could lead to health problems

including an increase in hunger, malnutrition and disease (ANTHC 2010). Displacement of

subsistence resources may result in the need to travel further thereby increasing risks of

accidents. Increased intensity of storms would increase risks to commercial fishermen and

subsistence users. Climate change can also impact drinking water and septic systems

through flooding and erosion with a potential for increased risk of infectious disease.

Many of the factors discussed above

have implications for subsistence.

Warmer temperatures pose safety

issues for ice-based subsistence.

River travel by boat has also been

affected due to sedimentation of the

Shaktoolik and Tagoomenik rivers

because of thawing permafrost of

the river banks. Shaktoolik residents

report some changes in marine

mammal and fish migration routes,

times and duration as well as new

animal and insect species

(Ignatowski and Rosales 2013).

Old village site


Nine Major Initiatives

1. Vegetated Berm: Construct a berm in front of the

community to deflect wave energy and reduce

overtopping.

2. Storm Surge Mound: Construct a mound above the

500-year flood level to serve as a place of refuge

during a storm.

3. Multipurpose Building: Seek funding to construct a

building to house community offices and the

community during a large storm.

4. Tank Farms: Explore options to replace the

community’s two tank farms in a location away from

the beach

5. Background Papers and Funding Proposals: Develop

issue papers for the initiatives for submittal to

funding organizations.

6. Hazard Plan: Update the local hazard mitigation

plan to reflect current priorities.

7. Monitoring: Initiate a community-based monitoring

system and encourage agencies to continue hazard

monitoring.

8. Future Studies: Pursue funding for new studies that

will be needed to implement the adaptation plan.

9. Guidelines: Develop local guidelines for

development to protect structures from storms.

4 Initiatives for Implementing the Adaptation Plan

The Shaktoolik Planning Committee met on December 17, 2013 and approved nine major initiatives

for inclusion in this adaptation plan.

These initiatives were developed by

the Alaska Sea Grant team in close

cooperation with the Shaktoolik

Planning Committee and the local Sea

Grant Coordinator.

By its very nature, the Adaptation Plan

requires an adaptive approach to

respond to new information and

unexpected opportunities. The

Planning Committee will reevaluate

these initiatives periodically and

revise the plan as needed.

This report on adaptation measures

implements the “stay and defend”

approach by evaluating options that

will allow the community to remain at

its current location. The following

principles were used to develop the

initiatives, strategies and actions.

The most important concern is

to protect lives during a

catastrophic flood event.

Low-cost approaches that

involve local resources and

labor will be given priority.

Opportunities to partner with agencies and organizations will be encouraged.

A reasonable likelihood exists that the measure can be funded.

Monitoring impacts from future storms, including flood levels and erosion, will provide

important information for future planning efforts.

The remainder of this chapter begins with a summary of the principles used to develop the

Adaptation Plan followed by a detailed list of strategies that can be used to implement the plan.


4.1 Initiatives

Today’s funding situation, backed by Alaska’s

checkered history of implementing shoreline and flood

protection projects, will require careful planning by

Shaktoolik. Budget reductions by state and federal

governments provide a challenge to the many rural

communities that compete for funding. In addition,

some funding programs require a positive benefit cost

ratio (i.e., the estimated value of benefits must outweigh the costs of construction). Due in part to

failure of some previous efforts, such as shoreline protection structures in Kivalina and Shishmaref,

it will be important that options selected by Shaktoolik have a high likelihood of success.

For the near term, the community has decided to pursue a “stay and defend” approach. Rather

than plan to relocate the community, village leaders have decided to pursue all practical options

that will allow residents to remain at the current location for as long as possible. This approach

appears to be a reasonable way forward given the information currently available to the

community. Substantial investments in the infrastructure at the current community site will be

necessary whether or not Shaktoolik eventually decides to relocate. Should the community change

its current plan, it would take many years to fund and implement a move. The recommendations in

this report represent low-cost options selected to prevent loss of life and avoid or minimize

structural damage in the event that a severe storm occurs prior to any future relocation.

While it may be tempting to wait for results of monitoring and further studies, it is important that

the community move forward with a plan of action. Such a plan of action would take years to

implement, and each year brings a new threat of a major storm. Results of monitoring and further

studies can be used to refine the plan in the future. The Sea Grant project concludes in February

2014, and the State of Alaska will begin implementation of the Adaptation Plan under a grant

managed by the Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Alaska Department of Commerce,

Community and Economic Development.

4.1.1 Vegetated Berm

Initiative: Finalize plans to construct the demonstration berm proposed by DOT&PF engineers and

quantify construction costs for extending the berm. Community leaders would like to see a berm

constructed along the entire ocean side of the community, and they believe the demonstration

berm provides a first step to develop a methodology and quantify costs. On advice of the engineers,

a driftwood-retention fence could be installed in conjunction with or separate from the

demonstration berm. As well, driftwood logs could be anchored together by cable to provide

stability. The community should secure funding to obtain a dump truck as soon as possible since

this project cannot proceed without this equipment. Indications are that a properly constructed

berm could prevent damage and flooding from all but the most severe anticipated storms.

At the June 2013 Shaktoolik Planning

Committee, residents expressed a need

to take action. They said there have

been enough studies and enough talk.


Table 1: Construct a Vegetative Berm in front of the Community

Strategy Actions Partners

1. Demonstration Berm a. Work with DOT&PF to work out logistics and

establish a schedule for construction of the

demonstration berm. Determine how much funding

is available for local workers to construct the

demonstration berm.

Local Coordinator,

DOT&PF

b. Obtain permission from landowner to use

materials from the north end of the sand spit for

construction of the demonstration berm.

c. Confirm that no permits are needed to remove

materials and construct the berm. If permits are

needed, submit permit applications.

d. Obtain beach grass from the Alaska Plant

Materials Center or from local sources.

e. Recruit local workers.

f. Work with local teachers to explore opportunities

for student participation in planting vegetation on

the berm.

2. Dump Truck a. Purchase or rent a dump truck.14

b. Secure funding to ship dump truck.

3. Berm Extension a. Using information gained from demonstration

berm project, estimate costs for completion of a

berm in front of the entire community.

b. Work with DCCED to develop a proposal for

assistance from the Innovative Readiness Training

(IRT) Program to extend the berm in front of the

entire community.

c. Consider requesting an Army Corps of Engineers

feasibility study for coastal protection that would

include consideration of a vegetated berm.

d. Obtain permission from landowner to use

materials from the north end of the sand spit for

construction of the demonstration berm.

e. Determine if any permits are needed to remove

materials and construct the berm.

14

A purchased dump truck could also be used to haul refuse to the landfill.


4.1.2 Storm Surge Mound

Initiative: Construct a storm surge mound. This is a concept widely applied in Japan for evacuation

from tsunamis, and it is currently being developed in other countries. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) recognizes vertical evacuation refuges, including mounds, as suitable

response to tsunami threats (FEMA 2008).15 In some ways, a storm surge behaves like a tsunami, in

slow motion, and such a structure would provide refuge from the most extreme storm surge as well

as the less likely threat of a tsunami. Construction of a mound above the estimated 500-year flood

levels would provide a relatively low-cost option to protect against loss of life in the case of the

most severe storm that could be expected. Such a mound would likely be less than 10-15 feet above

ground level. If a large storm was to occur with short notice, evacuation from the current village to

higher ground in the Foothills more than a dozen miles away would not be possible, but the entire

population could find safety on the mound from rising sea waters in less than an hour. The mound

could be constructed with local materials and employ local residents. The community has a suitable

front end loader and needs only a dump truck and landowner permission to start this project (i.e.,

excavation and placement of fill).

Table 2: Construct a Storm Surge Mound


1. Find a Location

a. Investigate alternatives for location of the

mound (e.g., the area at the northern edge of the

community). Map setback from airport required

by ADOT&PF.

b. Confirm site, ownership and costs, if any, for

extracting gravel.

c. Work with the landowner to determine who will

own the property where the mound is located.

Some federal programs require that either the

City or IRA to own the land in order to receive

funding.

15

The 2008 FEMA publication, Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis, includes structural design criteria.


3. Complete Study a. Contact university engineering programs to

solicit assistance in completing a feasibility study

(e.g., through a class project or thesis). The study

should indicate how high the mound must be,

how much fill is needed, whether armoring is

needed on the ocean side, and estimated

construction costs.

4. Secure Funding a. Investigate the feasibility of sharing

construction costs with other projects (e.g., the

mound could be used for the multipurpose

building, a new clinic, or a new tank farm).

b. Determine if the mound could be built in

conjunction with a possible IRT project for the

vegetated berm (military training program).

c. Meet with Alaska legislative and congressional

delegations or staff to explore funding options.

5. Construct Mound a. Construct mound using local labor, materials

and equipment.

6. Shelter a. Pursue funding options for either a permanent

or temporary shelter to house community

members during a severe storm. Alternatives for a

permanent shelter include structures that could

also be used as a multi-purpose building, clinic, or

heavy equipment storage shed. Temporary,

moveable structures could be used until funding

for a permanent building is secured.

4.1.3 Multipurpose Building

Initiative: Continue to pursue funding for a multipurpose building. The building would have several

benefits for the community, one of which would be safe and comfortable shelter during a

temporary stay during a storm. This structure could be constructed on the storm surge evacuation

mound.

Table 3: Construct a Multipurpose Building


1. Reconsider Site a. Consider options for siting building on the

storm surge mound.

2. Reduce Costs a. Get engineering advice for ways to reduce the


estimated $10 million cost for the facility. For

instance, costs may be reduced by constructing

the building on the storm surge mound which

would be above the 100-year flood.

3. Obtain Funding a. Continue to seek funding for construction of

building.

4.1.4 Funding Proposals and Communication

Initiative: Develop proposals for review by funding agencies for the projects selected by the

Planning Committee. The list of potential funding opportunities prepared as part of the Sea Grant

Project summarizes funding opportunities.

Table 4: Complete Proposals for Each Initiative and Expand Communication Efforts


1. Written Proposals a. Develop one-page summaries for each initiative

for submittal to funding agencies and

organizations.

b. Prioritize initiatives. Decide which priorities can

be pursued concurrently and which ones should

be pursued at a later date.

c. As opportunities arise, develop full proposals

for submittal to specific agencies or organizations

tailored to their requirements.

2. Communication a. Once one-page summaries are developed,

schedule meetings with Alaska’s Congressional

delegation and legislators from 39-T (in 2014,

Senator Olson and Representative Foster).

b. Compile a distribution list to potential funders

and other stakeholders and distribute periodic

updates (e.g., quarterly newsletter with

information about status of initiatives and damage

from storms).

c. Develop a website for the community that

includes information about efforts to address risk

of natural hazards and funding needs.

d. Distribute news releases to highlight

accomplishments regarding initiatives.


4.1.5 Local Mitigation Hazard Plan

Initiative: Update the 2009 Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to incorporate information from the

2010 Shaktoolik Situation Assessment and the 2011 Shaktoolik Coastal Flooding Analysis. FEMA and

the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services require that the plan be updated

by February 16, 2016 in order to receive funding. Since funding must relate to the goals of the plan,

the revised plan should align with the recommendations of the Planning Committee.

Table 5: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan


1. Contact DHS&EM a. Contact the Alaska Division of Homeland

Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM)

to discuss revision to the 2009 Local Hazard

Mitigation Plan (Scott Nelsen at 907-428-7010).

2. Revise Plan a. Decide who within the community will update

the plan.16 Update the plan to include new

information about flooding and erosion hazards.

Amend the plan goals to incorporate relevant

initiatives from the Adaptation Plan.

Tribe and City

3. Obtain Approval a. Submit plan to DHS&EM for approval.

4.1.6 Tank Farms

Initiative: Work with tank farm owners and potential funders to finance relocation of the two major

tank farms further from the coastline, possibly on the storm surge evacuation mound.

Table 6: Construct New Tank Farm further from the Coast


1. Schedule Meeting a. Schedule a meeting with tank owners, Alaska

Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC)

and the Coast Guard (USCG) to explore options for

a coordinated approach to relocate the tank

farms.17

City, Corporation,

School District,

AVEC, ADEC and

USCG.

2. Explore Options a. Complete an evaluation of potential sites for a

new tank farm.

3. Develop Plan a. Develop a written plan for moving the tank

farms that specifies commitments of current tank

owners. Consider development of a joint

resolution of tank owners supporting plan.

16

Grants are not available from the DHS&EM to update hazard mitigation plans, so this update will need to be done in house. 17

The Coast Guard and ADEC have regulatory authority over tank farms.


4.2.7 Monitoring

Initiative: The following recommendations for monitoring include both community-based

monitoring and efforts that would need to be completed by outside experts. The community

monitoring programs could be implemented as part of the IRA’s participation in the Local

Environmental Observer (LEO) program or by city staff.

a. Storm surge levels: Monitor water levels during storms. As a result of efforts by NOAA in 2010, Shaktoolik now has a benchmark to reference mean lower low water. The DOT&PF installed a storm gauge in June 2013 and is considering implementing a grant it received for local monitoring of storm surges.

b. Beach Erosion: Seek funding for continued erosion monitoring of the beach in front

of the community, including monitoring to determine if areas eroded during the

November 2013 are replenished with new material. As mentioned earlier in this

report, it is not certain whether the area in front of the current village site is

experiencing long-term net erosion or is relatively stable (i.e., summer accretion

replaces material lost during fall storms). The DGGS and Corps completed beach

profiles which provide a baseline for future measurements.

c. Driftwood Line: Implement a community-based monitoring program of the

driftwood line at the current village site. This effort would involve measurements

from a fixed point (e.g., corner of school) to the driftwood line. This measurement

should be taken after each large storm and be accompanied by photographs taken

from the same viewpoint.

d. Erosion at First Bend: Implement a community-based monitoring program at the old

village site near First Bend.18 This program would involve installation of a stable

marker, such as a rebar driven into the ground, for measuring distance from this

point to the river bank and the eroding beach berm. Photographs should be taken at

least once a year, and a camera could be set up to take time-lapse photography.

Table 7: Implement Community-Based and Agency Monitoring


1. Community Action a. Develop a draft plan for community-based

monitoring of beach and riverine erosion and

storm surges. Consider possibility of establishing

an ongoing class project to train and involve

students in monitoring.

b. Contact potential collaborators and funders. IRA IGAP program,

ANTHC LEO Program

ADOT&PF, and school.

c. Begin implementing the plan, including

establishment of benchmarks to measure erosion

18

Training may be available through the Alaska Coastal Observers Network: http://www.akcoastalcorps.org/home.

http://www.akcoastalcorps.org/home


at First Bend and driftwood line in front of

community. Continue to take photographs before

and after storms from the same vantage point to

track erosion and movement of driftwood in front

of the community. Keep photos cataloged in a file

for future use.

2. Agency Efforts a. Establish regular communication with agencies

that have done studies or monitoring in the

community.

City, tribe, ADOT&PF,

DGGS, and Corps.

b. Explore options with agencies to coordinate

future monitoring of storm surges and erosion.

4.1.8 Future Studies

Initiative: Pursue funding for new studies needed to implement the adaptation plan. Some

potential information needs are outlined in the following bullets.

Incorporate new information into the flooding models.19

Complete new beach profiles at the same locations as the previous profiles to quantify how

much material has been eroded or accreted.

Seek funds to complete a study on potential drinking water sources needs to plan for

options if erosion causes a break in the sand spit at First Bend.

If the community chooses to pursue high-cost erosion or flood control projects, feasibility

studies that examine several alternatives may be required.

It is recommended that future studies and projects include involvement of coastal engineers in the

design of erosion and flood protection projects. Coastal engineers have extensive training in coastal

processes and have experience in appropriate responses to respond to flooding and erosion. Also,

the community may wish to encourage accountability by requesting that future studies identify the

authors and that engineering-related documents include an engineering stamp.20

Table 8: Conduct Studies Needed to Implement Adaptation Plan


1. Prioritize Needs a. Determine what studies need to be done to

complete initiatives. Prioritize studies and work

with state and federal agencies to fund them.

19

For example, information from the beach profiles from the 2011 DGGS study could be added to the flooding models as well as other data collected since the 2011 flooding analysis, including storm surge measurements from the equipment installed in June 2011. 20

An engineering stamp certifies that a qualified engineer vouches for the accuracy and appropriateness of the documents. State of Alaska Administrative Order No. 175 requires that state-funded erosion control project include stamped drawings and design by a registered engineer in Alaska (Office of the Governor 1998). Federal requirements, however, may be different.


2. Feasibility Study a. Work with Kawerak to determine if a request

should be submitted to the Corps for an

assessment of the alternatives for flood and

erosion protection. If so, develop parameters to

guide the study.

4.1.9 Guidelines

Initiative: Develop local guidelines or ordinances to reduce damage from storms. The following

bullets provide some examples of potential measures that could be adopted as an ordinance or

guideline.

Establish setbacks from the beach for buildings constructed in the future.

Prohibit excavation of materials from the beach.

Designate specific points for ATV crossings over the berm to the beach.

Establish structural guidance for new buildings (e.g., raised on pilings above the 100-year

storm water level).

Table 9: Develop Local Guidelines for Development


1. Investigate Options a. Investigate what Alaska communities have

implemented local requirements or guidelines for

protection from flooding and erosion.

2. Approach a. Decide whether the community wishes to enact

a local ordinance that can be enforced or whether

it should simply establish guidelines.

3. Implementation a. Develop an implementation plan that includes a

public education component (e.g., public meeting

or a brochure).


5. Implementation

This Adaptation Plan was developed with the assumption that the community’s Planning

Committee will continue to oversee efforts to address impacts from climate change. This plan

provides a starting point for future work under the Alaska Community Coastal Protection Project

(ACCP). The Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs will oversee the ACCP project for

community with assistance from a local coordinator, a consultant and an interagency committee.

The initiatives, strategies and actions in this Adaptation Plan have been developed in a table format

that can be updated as needed to track results and to add new opportunities and priorities. The

tables include a column that indicates the agencies and organizations that will implement the

various actions. This column has not been completed for most actions. Instead, the local

coordinator and Planning Committee will determine who will do what as they implement this plan.

Most of the driftwood in this June 2013 photograph washed away during the November 2013 storm.


References

Adaptation Advisory Group. 2010. Alaska’s climate change strategy: Addressing impacts in

Alaska. Final Report submitted by the Adaptation Advisory Group to the Alaska Climate

Change Sub-Cabinet. January 2010.

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. 2014. Accessed 26

January, 2014 http://commerce.alaska.gov/CBP/Main/CBPLSearch.aspx?mode=BL

ANTHC. 2010. Climate change in Point Hope, Alaska: Strategies for community health.

ANTHC Center for Climate and Health. Anchorage.

Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. CFEC Public Lookup Databases. Accessed 7 February

2014. http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/plook/

Doak, D., and W. Morris. 2010. Demographic compensation and tipping points in climate-

induced range shifts. In Nature 467, 959-962, October 21, 2010.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2010a. Emergency operations plan: Shaktoolik, Alaska.

Prepared for the City of Shaktoolik and the Native Village of Shaktoolik IRA Council and the

Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Division of Homeland Security and

Emergency Management. January 2010.

______. Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2010b. Evacuation Plan: Shaktoolik, Alaska. Prepared

for the City of Shaktoolik and the Native Village of Shaktoolik IRA Council and the Alaska

Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency

Management. February 2010.

______. 2010c. Continuity of operations plan: Shaktoolik, Alaska. Prepared for the City of

Shaktoolik and the Native Village of Shaktoolik IRA Council and the Alaska Department of

Military and Veterans Affairs, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

February 2010.

FEMA. 2008. Guidelines for design of structures for vertical evacuation from tsunamis. FEMA P646.

Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency by Applied Technology Council.

Gaston, T., and G. Gillchrist. 2010. Murres. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard. Richter-Menge, J., and J.E. Overland, Eds. Accessed

October 26, 2010

http://commerce.alaska.gov/CBP/Main/CBPLSearch.aspx?mode=BL

http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/plook/

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard


Glenn Gray and Associates. 2010a. Summary of door-to-door Survey. Prepared by Glenn Gray

and Associates in Association with Kawerak Inc. for the Community of Shaktoolik.

Gill, M. 2010. Biology. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,


October 26, 2010.

Ignatowski, J. and J. Rosales. 2013. Identifying the exposure of two subsistence villages in Alaska to

climate change using traditional ecological knowledge. Climate Change Vol 120 No. 3,

October 2013.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report.

Ivanoff, S. 2010. Personal communication. March 1, 2010. Kawerak Transportation Planner.

Kawerak, Inc. 2007. Shaktoolik local economic development plan 2006-2011. Submitted to the

Village of Shaktoolik and the Bering Strait Development Council.

______. 2004a. Area use map Shaktoolik. Prepared by Kawerak Inc., in cooperation with

the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development with

funding by the Denali Commission, USDA Rural Development, Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities and the Department of Commerce, Community and

Economic Development and the U.S. Forest Service.

_____. 2004b. Community map Shaktoolik. Prepared by Kawerak Inc., in cooperation

with the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development with

funding by Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Denali

Commission, USDA Rural Development, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public

Facilities and the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development and

the U.S. Forest Service.

_____. 2004c. Community map Shaktoolik. Prepared by Kawerak Inc., in cooperation

with the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development with

funding by Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Denali

Commission, USDA Rural Development, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public

Facilities and the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development and

the U.S. Forest Service.

_____. 1996. Community map Shaktoolik. Prepared by McClintock Land Associates Inc.



for Kawerak, Inc. in Cooperation with the Alaska Department of Community and Regional

Affairs with funding provided by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Kinsman, N. and M. DeRaps. 2012. Coastal hazard field investigations in response to the November

2011 Bering Sea storm, Norton Sound, Alaska. Report of Investigations 2012-2. Division of

Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

Loonen, M., Zockler, C., and B. Ebbinge. 2010. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,


October 26, 2010.

Murphy, K, Huettmann, F., Fresco, N., and J. Morton. 2010. Connecting Alaska landscapes into

the future: Results from an interagency climate modeling, land management and conservation

project. University of Alaska and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

NOAA. 2010. Adapting to climate change: A planning guide for state coastal managers. Office

of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA. Silver Spring, MD.

Norton Bay Inter-Tribal Watershed Council. 2012. Climate adaptation and action plan for the

Norton Bay watershed, Alaska.

O’Brien, B. and W. Loya. 2009. Climate change impacts on water availability in Alaska.

Wilderness Society and Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning.

www.snap.uaf.edu/.../TWS%20Future%20Water%20Availability%20Summary%20091609.pdf

Accessed October 4. 2010.

Overland, J, Wang, M. and J. Walsh. 2010. Atmosphere. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,


October 26, 2010.

Parson, E., Carter, L., Anderson, P., Wang, B. and G. Weller. 2009. Potential consequences of

climate variability and change for Alaska. In Global Climate Change Impacts in the United

States. U.S Global Change Research Program.

Proshutinsky, A., Timmermans, M., Ashik. I., Beszczynska-Moeller, A., Carmack, E., Frolov, I.,

Krishfield, R., McLaughlin, F., Morison, J., Polyakov, I., Shimada, K., Sokolov, V. Steele, M.,

Tooler, J., and R. Woodgate. 2010. Ocean. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,


October 26, 2010.


http://www.snap.uaf.edu/.../TWS%20Future%20Water%20Availability%20Summary%20091609.pdf




Rodney P. Kinney Associates. 2008. Shaktoolik evacuation road project: Road reconnaissance

report. Prepared for the Native Village of Shaktoolik by Kawerak Transportation Program in

Cooperation with Rodney P. Kinney Associates.

______. 2007. Shaktoolik long range transportation plan. Prepared for Shaktoolik IRA Council in

Cooperation with Kawerak Transportation Program.

Romanovsky, V., Smith, S. and H. Christianson. 2010. Permafrost thermal state in the polar

northern hemisphere during the International Polar year 2007-2009: a synthesis. Permafrost

and Periglacial Processes. 21: 106-116. Published online in Wiley InterScience.

ScienceDaily. 2009. Increased ocean acidification in Alaska waters, new findings show. August 13,

2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm

Simpkins, M. 2010. Marine mammals. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,


October 26, 2010.

______. 2010b. Alaska regional climate projections. Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning.

Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning. Accessed October 11, 2010

http://www.snap.uaf.edu/downloads/fact-sheets-and-short-documents-0

1980. Community map of Shaktoolik. Prepared by the Department of Community and

Regional Affairs in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

with a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Tape, K., Sturm., and C. Racine. 2006. The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska and

the Pan-Arctic. In Global Change Biology, Vol 12: 686-702.

Thomas, Dan. 1982. The role of local fish and wildlife populations in the community of

Shaktoolik, Alaska. Show. ScienceDaily. August 14, 2009. Accessed February 13, 2010, from

http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm

University of Alaska. 2009. Increased Ocean Acidification in Alaska Waters, New Findings

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Shaktoolik coastal flooding analysis. October 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. American FactFinder. Selected Economic Characteristics 2008-2012,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm


http://www.snap.uaf.edu/downloads/fact-sheets-and-short-documents-0


Accessed 26 January 2014.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_1

2_5YR_DP03&prodType=table

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United

States.

USKH. 2012. Final report: Shaktoolik community emergency shelter. Prepared for the Native Village

of Shaktoolik.

Walker, D., Bhatt, U., Comiso, J., Epstein, H., Gould, W., Henry, G., Jia, G., Kokelj, S., Lantz,

T., Mercado-Diaz, J., Pinzon, J., Raynolds, M., Shaver, G., Tucker, C., Tweedle, C., and P.

Webber. 2010. Vegetation. In Arctic Report Card October 2010,


October 26, 2010.

WHPacific. 2009. Community of Shaktoolik, Alaska local multi-hazard mitigation plan.

Prepared by Native Village and City of Shaktoolik, WHPacific and Bechtol Planning and

Development.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Demographic and Housing Estimates. American FactFinder. Accessed 11

February 2014.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_1

2_5YR_DP05

_____. 2010. Households and Families: 2010. 2010 Census. Accessed 11 February 2014.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_1

0_SF1_QTP11

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP03&prodType=table

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP03&prodType=table


http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP05

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP05

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP11

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP11

adaptation plan - skclivinglandscapes.org · climate change adaptation plan executive summary this...

Documents